News on the fundraising front as the FEC deadline comes today:

First, Pawlenty’s campaign released more detailed numbers ahead of the FEC release and things actually look remarkably better for them than originally assumed. Pawlenty raised $4.45 million last quarter, of which just $600,000 was for the general election. They spent about $2.45 million, leaving them with $1.4 million cash on hand as of June 30.

This isn’t great news compared to competitors in 2007, but compared to other candidates in the field this campaign Pawlenty is not nearly as bad off as folks had thought. $1.4 million cash on hand is more than enough to make a strong push at Ames.

Meanwhile, Bachmann was expected to come in second in the money race, but sources are reporting there may be a reason she never released her numbers until she had to. According to someone close to the campaign, Bachmann will report $4 million for the second quarter — $2 million of which was a transfer from her House campaign. This means Michelle raised just $2 million, putting her at the bottom of the fundraising list and well behind Pawlenty’s $3.85 million.

The silver lining for the Bachmann campaign, and what they will likely focus on: she had just a couple weeks in June when she was actually running to raise the money.

As the official FEC numbers are released, I will post an official second quarter fundraising leaderboard, complete with cash on hand numbers as well.

UPDATE: Rick Santorum reports raising $582,000. He has $229,000 cash on hand.

The Ames Straw Poll is now just 29 days away, and the candidates are doubling down on some Iowa ad buys in an attempt to woo voters. Remember, Tim Pawlenty was up first with a couple minuscule ad buys that ran only in one market and cost less than $50,000. Then Michelle Bachmann bought some time for an ad that ran statewide, but very briefly for just $25,000. Now, however, the big bucks are finally starting to come out.

Ron Paul’s latest theatrical preview/promo ad demanding no compromise on the debt ceiling is being run all over the state and will cost the campaign $166,000 – making it the largest ad buy so far when it was announced yesterday.

Last night, however, Team Pawlenty responded with a bank-breaking $200,000 ad buy.

Here’s where the differing strategies become apparent, though. Ron Paul is running his ads in every market in the state (including the towns of Des Moines, Ames, Sioux City, Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Iowa City, Dubuque, Davenport, Rock Island, and Moline).

Pawlenty, on the other hand, has gone all in with his one market strategy, running his ad only in the Des Moines market (which includes Ames). The ad will run from now until August 12, the day prior to Ames.

I can’t pretend to understand Pawlenty’s strategy of not running ads in other parts of the state. Also, I have heard that this latest ad focuses on faith, an interesting move leading up to Ames and clearly an attempt to tap into the support of the Iowa evangelical community that allowed Huckabee to rise to prominence in 2007. When the ad becomes available, we’ll post it here at R4’12.

UPDATE: Michele Bachmann will be going up with a total of just $43,000 in ads across the state of Iowa from July 20 – August 2. The money is split between TV and radio ads that will play in the Des Moines/Ames market as well as three other markets around the state. This small ad buy does not bode well for her cash on hand total, which has yet to be released.

Ben Howe of RedState wrote a piece simply entitled “Palin” that I recommend everyone take a few minutes to read. In this piece he discussed the media bias against Palin, his views on her, and then discusses how he felt after watching the documentary, “The Undefeated.” Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Sarah Palin is an emotional topic for a lot of people.

She seems to be one of those national figures that you either love with adoring affection, or hate with an uncontrollable rage. Rarely have I met someone who simply doesn’t have an opinion of her. Many pretend to, but most you can see through. At least I can. I can see through it because my opinion of her was much more specific than I ever liked to admit.

Certainly I believed that the media had been incredibly unkind to her. I believed that her stepping down as Governor was more the loss of an intense battle than simply the “giving up to go get rich” that others had labeled it. But in truth, I didn’t too much care for her, in spite of my public facade of being mostly opinion free.

I didn’t think she’d really done much in Alaska, or if she had, that it was enough to act like she was the second coming of Reagan. I thought that her contributions when being interviewed were bubble-gum and lacking of any real substance. I would never finish hearing a story about her and think, “Wow, I never thought of that before.” I just didn’t see that she had that much to offer…Ultimately, I thought she was the type of political force that was going to be around, needed to be treaded on carefully, but would never have anything substantial to offer to the cause of conservatism other than rallying troops which I still believed was a valuable service.

I thought she hadn’t gotten a fair shake in the media, but I felt confident that I could see through the bias and that I understood who she was, what she had done and what my opinion would probably be about her going forward.

I was entirely incorrect.

Read the entire piece and I recommend checking out “The Undefeated” as it hits theaters today. I know I’m interested.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.

Movement is from the last update one week ago:

Only candidates who have announced an official candidacy or who have greater than a 3% chance at the nomination are included.

Just got back from a little vacation and caught up on what I’ve missed the past few days. It’s nice to get away for awhile; apparently I need to more often because when I do, seventy three different polls from Iowa get released. Heh.

The investors this week apparently like Romney’s chances as Pawlenty and Huntsman continue to pile on with attacks on everything from job creation to the debt ceiling to flip flopping. So far, nothing’s sticking, and Bachmann – who has side-stepped opportunities to attack Romney – is the one coming out the winner in the polls.

But speaking of Bachmann, she finally stopped her six week ascent in the Intrade charts and slid back an unhealthy two and a half points, ceding second place territory to Rick Perry (hence the title of the update) – who is looking more and more like he will jump in the race as he contacts folks in Iowa and New Hampshire and makes some impressive hires.

Meanwhile Pawlenty continues his abysmal slide with every Iowa poll that shows him with just a third (or less) of the support in Iowa that Bachmann has, and Romney in a solid second place in the state he hasn’t even been campaigning in. Pawlenty’s hopes rest entirely on Iowa; as long as Bachmann and Romney both remain ahead of him there, he’s not going anywhere. He will most likely get second place at Ames (unless Cain or Paul pull off a minor upset), and the biggest question for his campaign moving forward will then be what the media focuses on and how they spin it.

Mitt Romney gave a speech today to the Rotary Club in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He spoke for about sixteen minutes and then opened it to questions. Here is the video:

He outlined what is exceptional about America, and why we have the highest standard of living in the world. He expounded upon free enterprise, capitalism and competition. He is very bullish about America.

After his speech, Mitt opened the floor to questions. Among the topics covered by the questioners were:

• The Debt Ceiling Crisis
• Troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Our relationship with Israel.

It was all off the cuff, nary a note in sight — not even a scribble on his palm. A very impressive performance.

Read about it here.

American Research Group 2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney 29% (32%)
• Michele Bachmann 12% (1%)
• Rudy Giuliani 9% (8%)
• Sarah Palin 8% (2%)
• Newt Gingrich 7% (8%)
• Tim Pawlenty 5% (2%)
• Ron Paul 4% (8%)
• Herman Cain 4% (2%)
• Rick Perry 2%
• Rick Santorum 2% (0%)
• Gary Johnson *% (1%)
• Jon Huntsman 0% (0%)
• Buddy Roemer 0% (0%)
• Other/Undecided 18% (8%)

(more…)

Scott Conroy at RCP has the details:

Decision day is rapidly approaching for Sarah Palin, and for the first time the former Alaska governor has indicated a time frame for when she will make a decision about whether to run for president.

“You know, August and September, you do have to start laying out a plan if you are to be one to throw your hat in the ring, so that’s basically the time frame,” Palin told Sean Hannity during an appearance Wednesday night on Fox News.

Palin has been relatively quiet over the past month, as she returned to her home in Alaska after a brief appearance in the nation’s first voting state of Iowa to attend the premiere of “The Undefeated” — a documentary extolling her leadership in Alaska, which opens in select theaters nationwide on Friday.

Asked about her recent comment to Newsweek that she could win a general election, Palin said that while does believe that she could beat President Obama, she would also consider supporting another Republican candidate — if she felt that he or she met certain requirements that she looks for in a national leader.

Read the rest here.

Hizzoner is “not convinced that any of the declared Republican presidential contenders can defeat President Barack Obama”:

“These are a lot of qualified people,” the former New York City mayor told The Associated Press on the eve of his fourth visit to New Hampshire this year. “Do they have a good chance of winning? I don’t know the answer to that.”

Giuliani, who acknowledges that his failed 2008 campaign was deeply flawed, has five public appearances scheduled during a two-day visit starting Thursday to the first-in-the-nation primary state. The stops include a luncheon with the Seacoast Federation of Republican Women in Portsmouth, a more intimate gathering at a private New Castle home with law enforcement officials and a gun-rights discussion at Manchester Harley Davidson.

It may sound like a candidate’s schedule, but Giuliani backed away from an aide’s recent comment that he would decide “very soon” whether to join the presidential field. He ruled out any decision before the end of July and said his timeline is late August or early September. He argued that he still has the drive to extend his political career.

“I have a tremendous fire for more public service,” Giuliani, 67, said. “That’s something that I feel sort of incomplete about.”

Still, he doesn’t sound eager to be considered even a potential candidate.

“I certainly haven’t decided to get in. I don’t think I would even describe myself as testing the waters. I’d say that I keep it open as a possibility,” he said, adding he was going to New Hampshire at the invitation of local Republicans. “And it will give me a chance to gather more information and get a better feeling for it.”

Read the rest here.

Mason-Dixon Iowa 2012 Presidential Survey

Republican Caucus

• Michele Bachmann 32%
• Mitt Romney 29%
• Tim Pawlenty 7%
• Rick Santorum 6%
• Ron Paul 3%
• Newt Gingrich 2%
• Herman Cain 1%
• Jon Huntsman 0%
• Gary Johnson 0%
• Undecided 19%

General Election

• Mitt Romney 47%
• Barack Obama 44%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Michele Bachmann 46%

Survey of 629 likely voters, including a subsample of 300 likely GOP caucus-goers, was conducted July 5-7, 2011 for Every Child Matters Education Fund. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points among all likely voters; +/- 5.7 percentage points among likely GOP caucus-goers. Party registration breakdown: 37% Democrat; 33% Republican; 31% Independent. Political ideology (Likely Voters): 31% Somewhat conservative; 20% Liberal; 18% Conservative; 17% Somewhat liberal; 13% Moderate. Political ideology (GOP Caucus-Goers): 70% Conservative; 29% Somewhat conservative; 1% Moderate.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Reuters/Ipsos Public Affairs National Poll

Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Barack Obama is
handling his job as President?

• Approve – 49%
• Disapprove – 46%

APPROVAL BY PARTY ID

• Democrats – 83%/14% (+69%)
• Independents – 39%/51% (-12%)
• Republicans – 15%/82% (-67%)

Who do you think would make a better candidate for the Republican nomination for President, Michelle Bachmann or Mitt Romney?

Among Republicans

• Mitt Romney – 43%
• Michele Bachmann – 25%
• Other/Don’t Know/Nothing – 32%

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney – 27%
• Michele Bachmann – 17%
• Other/Don’t Know/Nothing – 57%

Among Republicans and Independents

• Mitt Romney – 40%
• Michele Bachmann – 23%
• Other/Don’t Know/Nothing – 37%

Survey taken among 43% Democrats (18% Strongly Dem, 11% Moderately Dem, 14% Lean Dem), 36% Republicans (12% Strong, 10% Moderately, 14% Lean), and 21% Independents

Click the link (PDF alert) to see all the data, including questions regarding the direction of the country, issues most important to voters, and and which services the government should stop paying first and second if Congress does not vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Regarding the last-mentioned additional question, voters overwhelmingly chose for the U.S. to stop paying “international creditors like banks” first (36% first choice, 23% second choice), followed by “government departments like education and agriculture” (12% first choice, 18% second choice). Hopefully for the country, these numbers do not suggest continued public ignorance regarding the U.S.’s entitlement problem.

In the end, the biggest takeaway of the poll involves the Romney-Bachmann question. Fortunately for Mitt, the voters appear to back his argument – that he has greater suitability for the office of President than Michele. This provides more ammunition for the full-frontal attack that will launch against Bachmann, from Govs. Romney and Pawlenty, as both will only question her preparedness more frequently as the campaign progresses.

Today’s frequent flyer horror story of the week, involving a woman arrested for refusing to allow a patdown of her daughter by TSA officials, serves as yet another reminder of President Obama’s poltical tin ear. Incidents such as these have been prominent since at least the 2010 holiday season, and only exacerbate the sense that exists in Middle America that Washington is presently tone deaf to its concerns. President Obama’s refusal to take this issue by the horns and use it to his advantage bothers me not as a Republican, but as an armchair political strategist, and one who sees a low hanging fruit that is just begging to be plucked by the president.

Reforming air travel protocol would very much be a low risk, high reward move for the president, and would give Obama a chance to show that he “feels the pain” of Middle America by changing policies that have very little practical impact on most Americans, but which carry with them a tremendous psychological impact. Indeed, if Bill Clinton were president, I believe that he would have long ago fired Janet Napolitano, the persona of whom has become fused with these invasive TSA procedures in the public psyche, and would have put on hold the most egregious of the procedures, replacing them with methods that would result in less of a public outcry. Napolitano would be quietly ushered into a cushy, left-wing think tank job, while the president would have “saved Christmas” for Americans who utilize air travel.

Instead of making such a move, however, the president has allowed public resentment with TSA agents to simmer, creating yet another disconnect between “the folks” and their government. This makes even less sense given that President Obama, as the first Black American president, is especially well situated to replace current TSA measures with a system that includes profiling of passengers by officials trained to make determinations as to what constitutes a suspicious traveler. Racial and ethnic considerations would only be part of such a determination of course, as the real substance of the profiling would be behavioral. But just as only Nixon could go to China, Obama is in a much better position to make such a call from a political perspective than would be a middle-aged, Southern white guy with a thick drawl. In so doing, President Obama would be showing Middle America that he “gets it.”

Moreover, if Obama wanted to be really gutsy, he could make TSA reform part of his call for tax hikes, claiming that Republicans’ refusal to increase federal revenues ensures that no funds are available to institute such a profiling mechanism in place of the random patdowns. In so doing, Obama would be stealing a conservative issue from Republicans, as Bill Clinton pretty much did on a monthly basis during his presidency, and make Republican refusals to “tax the rich” the reason for continued groping at the airport. Of course, such a calculus is far too advanced for President Obama, who lacks the most recent previous Democratic president’s political smarts and willingless to embrace amorality when necessary as a career move. I suspect that, on this and many other issues, the president would prefer to stand his ground and go down with the ship. He may just get his wish.

PPP has released their latest vs. Obama poll for North Carolina. Here are the results:

Romney leads the way with Palin bringing up the rear. The top four Republicans are well within striking distance of Obama. Even Palin’s eight point deficit is well within the realm of possibility.

PPP polls North Carolina every month. This allows us to see their trend over time. Here is a chart of their data for the year so far:

The bottom line is all Republicans can take heart from this month’s North Carolina numbers.

PPP polled the State of Utah. In news that is sure to shock the nation to its core, Romney leads in the horse race poll of 2012 GOP hopefuls by nearly 50%. Here are the stunning results:

Sarcastic hyperbole aside, normally I would have felt that it was a waste of money to do a horse race poll in Utah. However, the Romney/Hunstman dynamic makes it somewhat worthwhile.

In a state which knows both men very well, and have seen close and upfront how both of them operate, Romney leads Huntsman head to head by nearly four to one.

I have never seen the justification of a Huntsman candidacy. As I’ve have remarked before, he seems to be a solution in search of a problem. About the only people who were excited about him were the news media. What is sure to make matters worse for Jon, even they seem to be realizing it. Since his launch, the media has been pretty much ignoring him. He’s basically been regulated to the third tier of candidates whom nobody really cares about.

Magellan Strategies (R) Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Survey

• Michele Bachmann 29%
• Mitt Romney 16%
• Tim Pawlenty 8%
• Herman Cain 8%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Newt Gingrich 5%
• Rick Santorum 3%
• Some other candidate 2%
• Undecided 24%

(more…)

Front-page contributor Dave Gaultier raised a very interesting question in the comments section of the post regarding the most recent ARG Iowa caucus poll, which shows Ron Paul in a close third for the win (behind Bachmann and Romney), and shows Paul in first place amongst independent voters (who are eligible to participate in the Republican caucuses in the Hawkeye State):

“Wouldn’t it be something if Ron Paul won the Iowa caucus?”

Something indeed!  And it’s not just some far-off, crazy idea, like Jimmy McMillan taking the damn Republican nomination.  Ron Paul is a mere six points away from the lead, in this poll.  Granted, other polls show Paul a few notches lower than where ARG pegs him, but the path to an Iowa win is perfectly plausible.  Bachmann’s gaffes and missteps cause her campaign to implode, Perry opts not to get in, Cain continues his disintegration, Pawlenty fumbles with another negative attack against Romney or another candidate (or Pawlenty drops out after a poor showing in the Ames Straw Poll), and perhaps Gingrich drops out after a poor showing in the Ames Straw Poll too (or his horribly mismanaged campaign organization just atrophies into an Alan Keyes-like shadow of its former self).

If this is the way the campaign plays out, which is quite believable, this potentially sets up Ron Paul as the “true believer” social conservative challenger to Mitt Romney.  If the evangelical network gets behind Paul and gives the Texan congressman a Huckabee-esque boost, then Paul can win, especially if, say, someone big like Sarah Palin were to endorse Paul (seeing as Palin has said she’s a fan of Ron Paul, and endorsed his son Rand for the Kentucky Senate).

Of course, if Paul ekes out a surprise win in Iowa, Mitt Romney has a wide array of targets to strike at: the old, racist newsletters that were ghostwritten under Paul’s name; Paul’s support for legalizing all drugs; Paul’s opposition to any military alliances and his support of withdrawing all U.S. troops from everywhere in the world immediately; etc.  But if Paul’s economic message resonates, and he can convince social conservatives that he is their best standard bearer, the negativity could tarnish Romney more than it does Paul.  Paul’s proven ability to fundraise (he became the fundraising frontrunner in Q4 of last election cycle) also means it’s possible that Romney cannot simply outspend Paul either (and 2010′s Whitman/Fiorina/McMahon/etc. campaigns also proved that spending cash has, at a certain point, a very high rate of diminishing returns).

Going into New Hampshire, where Paul’s fiercely independent, live-free-or-die mentality fits right in with the ethos of the Granite State, it is also believable that Paul could pull off a McCain style comeback, that is–if he could weather all the dirt that would be pummeling him in the face in the eight days between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

But let’s just say that the only-slightly-unthinkable happens: Ron Paul wins both Iowa and New Hampshire.

What the heck happens now???

Either:

A). Voters settle for one or the other, and the rest of the primaries play out between Romney and Paul.

B). A third option comes riding in on a white horse at the last second as a compromise candidate between Romney and Paul: someone like Christie, Daniels, or Jindal?

C). Republicans who can’t bear to vote for Romney or Paul break off and form a third party, either as a temporary fix for the 2012 election, or as a permanent breakaway from the GOP.

If no other complications (such as some rockstar compromise candidate parachuting in at the last minute, or a third party threat) come into play, Paul’s momentum likely carries into South Carolina, while Romney probably takes Florida (whose elderly population will be wary of Paul’s talk of letting young workers “opt out” of paying for current retirees’ Social Security and Medicare) and Nevada (with its LDS population).  If no one candidate distinguishes themselves on Super Tuesday, the slog could carry on in an Obama-Hillary fashion until the summer, or even the convention.  If Paul manages to emulate his son and ultimately win in a Rand Paul (grassroots) over Trey Grayson (establishment) type battle, then the third party threat truly becomes reality.

In the last New Hampshire presidential debate, Romney claimed that any of the candidates on stage would be worth supporting, and the line, “Whoever wins the Republican nomination, we need to fall behind” has echoed throughout Republican Land.  But would someone like Romney, or one of the aforementioned white knight candidates, or someone like Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump, really resist the opportunity to wedge their way into the general election to pick up the votes of the neocons and prohibitionists who are too put off by Paul’s anti-war/pro-drug legalization stances, as well as the independents who are too frightened by Paul’s hardened fiscal libertarianism?

There’s a hundred ways it could play out, but it’s a contingency worth pondering, because it’s now actually conceivable:

What if Ron Paul wins?

Could you bring yourself to vote for him in your state’s primary, if he was a “lesser of two evils” in your mind?  If he gets nominated, would you fall in line and vote Republican in November?  Which white knight would actually have the chance to win, swooping in during the middle of the primary season?  Could Paul actually defeat Obama in the general?

Quinnipiac 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

• Mitt Romney 25% {25%} [18%] (18%)
• Michele Bachmann 14% {6%} [4%]
• Sarah Palin 12% {15%} [15%] (19%)
• Rick Perry 10%
• Herman Cain 6% {9%}
• Newt Gingrich 5% {8%} [5%] (15%)
• Ron Paul 5% {8%} [5%]
• Tim Pawlenty 3% {5%} [4%] (6%)
• Rick Santorum 1% {4%} [1%]
• Jon Huntsman 1% {1%} [1%]
• Thaddeus McCotter 0%
• Don’t know 18% {20%} [15%] (17%)

(more…)

Quinnipiac 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 47% [47%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 41% [41%] (45%)

• Barack Obama 50%
• Michele Bachmann 38%

• Barack Obama 50%
• Rick Perry 37%

• Barack Obama 53% [53%] (48%)
• Sarah Palin 34% [36%] (40%)

(more…)

American Research Group 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus Survey

• Michele Bachmann 21% (9%)
• Mitt Romney 18% (17%)
• Ron Paul 14% (3%)
• Sarah Palin 11% (4%)
• Newt Gingrich 8% (12%)
• Rick Santorum 5% (2%)
• Jon Huntsman 3% (-%)
• Herman Cain 2% (-%)
• Rudy Giuliani 2% (8%)
• Rick Perry 2%
• Tim Pawlenty 2% (1%)
• Gary Johnson -% (-%)
• Buddy Roemer -% (-%)
• Other/Undecided 12% (8%)

(more…)

From NewsMax:

In the stock market, it’s known as the whisper number. It’s the stock market analysts’ consensus on what earnings a company will report. Because they give their forecasts anonymously, the analysts tend to be more honest. Over time, the whisper number has proven to be more accurate than the figure analysts cite on the record.

In politics, it works the same way. When speaking publicly, conservative leaders usually hedge their bets. They don’t want to be seen as favoring one candidate over another.

In private, it’s a different matter. In those off-the-record conversations, a range of conservative leaders I have chatted with favor Mitt Romney for president.

…

The author goes on to expound upon this theme. Be sure and read his entire article.

Today, the Des Moines Register published an op-ed from Gov. Pawlenty. Titled, “The Answer Is Not More Government Spending”, here it is:

Democrats are saying we have no choice but to spend more and raise taxes, and they are willing to shut down government if they don’t get their way. That’s the scene in both our nation’s and Minnesota’s capitals, where Republicans are rightly taking a strong stand against out-of-control government.
Minnesota Democrats have shut down the state’s government after the Republican-led legislature refused to agree to massive spending increases and tax hikes. In Washington, President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are using the debt ceiling debate to threaten default if their thirst for more taxes and spending isn’t satisfied.

With America facing 9.2 percent unemployment and anemic economic growth, the last thing we need is more government. We need to balance government budgets by cutting spending and rejecting tax increases. This can be done in both Minnesota and Washington, but only if Republicans draw a line in the sand and stand firm against more spending and taxes.

That’s what I did as governor of Minnesota, where I balanced every budget without tax increases and left the state with an estimated $663 million surplus for the budget period that ended last month. It wasn’t easy: We made tough choices to prioritize programs and cut spending. We passed market-based health care reforms, pay-for-performance for teachers, public employee pension reforms and more to get the state’s finances under control.

This was a big change for my state, where out-of-control spending used to be the norm. In the four decades before I became governor, the biennial budget increase averaged over 20 percent. I put a stop to that with a record number of vetoes, the first government shutdown in the state’s history, and one of the longest transit strikes in American history. During my time as governor, the state’s spending increased at an annual rate of a bit over 1 percent — and we actually cut spending in the last two years for the first time ever.

Sadly, now some politicians want to return to the era of out-of-control spending increases. For example, former Vice President Walter Mondale, who lost his 1984 campaign in a landslide after promising to raise taxes, and former Gov. Arne Carlson, who endorsed John Kerry and Barack Obama, are leading a charge to raise taxes and justify new spending. Like the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park”, their ideas are from a bygone era and have no place in today’s debate.

The same can be said of the Democrats in Washington who want more spending and taxes as part of a deal to increase the debt ceiling.

For the first two years of President Obama’s administration, federal spending increased by over 20 percent — just like it did every two years in Minnesota before I became governor. It was unsustainable when Minnesota did it, and it’s unsustainable while Washington is doing it.

In my experience, most politicians are like running water — they flow to the path of least resistance. That’s why the debt ceiling debate in Washington is so important and why we cannot allow it to increase without game-changing reforms to our federal budget. Let’s start with a balanced budget amendment, a cap on federal spending levels and real cuts to this year’s budget.

Our nation is sinking in a sea of red ink. At every level, governments’ are facing big deficits as the weak economy diminishes tax revenues at the very same time that the bill is coming due on decades of irresponsible spending increases, entitlement promises and pension promises. As I proved in Minnesota, these problems can be solved without tax increases. It just takes resolve, leadership and the conviction that lower taxes and less government will ultimately spur higher economic growth and job creation.

Pawlenty wisely highlights his first-hand experience with deficit battles and impressive record on spending. Especially when trying to compete with and distinguish himself from Michele Bachmann, explaining that he has actually achieved, instead of just talked about, these things, should help endear him to Iowa Republicans.

Rep. Ron Paul has just made the announcement via Facebook:

Big news! I have decided not to seek re-election for my House seat in 2012 and will focus all of my energy winning the Presidency. My hometown newspaper The Facts will be running the exclusive story very shortly.

Sunshine State News (R) Florida 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 46%
• Barack Obama 42%
• Undecided 10%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President?

• Approve 38%
• Disapprove 54%

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted July 5-7, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 42% Republican; 42% Democrat; 16% Independent.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Team Romney announced the latest additions to his Iowa leadership team today:

“I am pleased to announce additional members of my Iowa Leadership Team,” said Mitt Romney. “I am proud to earn their support and look forward to working with them during my campaign to reverse President Obama’s failed policies and create jobs.”

Announcing his support as Romney for President Iowa Volunteer Legal Counsel, Mark Hudson said, “President Obama’s policies have been complete failures for Iowa and the rest of the country. Instead of creating jobs and expanding the economy, President Obama has made job creation and economic development more difficult. Mitt Romney’s record as governor is the opposite – he created jobs and cut taxes while balancing his state’s budget.”

Additional Members Of Mitt Romney’s Iowa Leadership Team:

· State Senator James Hahn, Muscatine

· Romney For President Iowa Volunteer Legal Counsel And Former Linn County Republican Party Chairman, Mark Hudson, Marion

· Dallas County GOP Activist, Paul Bissinger

· Former University Of Northern Iowa College Republican Chairman, Patrick Finnegan, Des Moines

· Dr. Stephen Hunter, Iowa City

· Lorene Hunter, Iowa City

This is the time when the nation, and individual states, make the critical and historic decisions about their future economic well-being.

Finally, it is not a decision that is decades, years or months to come. The decision will be made now.

Minnesota is a harbinger of what might happen in Washington, DC. Although I have pointed out that there are folks in both parties who know what needs to be done, the Democratic Party leadership has defensively buried its collective head in the Potomac River sand, and we are not able to hear from Democrats who want to be a part of the transformation of American economic policy. Republicans in the U.S. Congress, in governorships and in state legislatures, however, have no such ambivalences about reversing three-quarters of a century of increased taxes, increased government spending, expansion of government at all levels, and the mindless increase of entitlements in American society.

Rumors that these Republicans will now “cave” into desperate liberal warnings and rhetoric about imminent disaster if these programs are not renewed, the debt ceiling is not raised, if taxes for the rich are not increased, and if government is not allowed to further control the lives of Americans, seem mostly to originate in the Old Media that have become “obedient pets” of the the old order. Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner has made it clear there will be no new taxes, no new spending and no bigger government. Even if he did not, the bulk of the GOP members of the U.S. house would balk at any agreement that did not honor these principles. The governors of New Jersey, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Florida, Texas and New York are showing remarkable leadership and singlehandedly have revived the original federal relationship as intended by the Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. constitution.

The “deal,” however is not done. President Obama has thrown in his lot with the historical past. The U.S. senate majority seems to have no interest in being part of an historical transformation of U.S. politics. Individual governors and state legislatures are resisting change. Interest groups which benefit from the accumulated “favored” treatment of the past seventy-five years are understandably unwilling to be part of inevitable historical change.

Make no mistake about it, it is going to take one more national election to finish the job. I want to stress that the transformation of American politics need not be an ideological one. What is driving this transformation is economic necessity which equally affects all Americans, regardless of party or ideology. (I trust there are other Democratic politicians besides Governor Cuomo who understand that some boldness, courage and independence now will propel them to the leadership of a revived Democratic Party after the Obama-Pelosi-Reid era is over.)

It will take another national election to finish the job, but what happens now will be a key to the character of the change that will happen. We’re here!

_____________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.

The Iowa Republican and Politico have a story about Michele Bachmann that may leave her competition sleepless tonight — declaring that “early questions about whether the Minnesotan had the organizational elbow grease she’d need to compete in the state seem to have been unfounded.”

TIR reports the following scene at a Polk County campaign stop over the weekend:

As people waited in line to enjoy free grilled hot dogs, volunteers used iPads to sign people up for free tickets to the upcoming Ames Straw Poll. They also asked if people needed transportation. Using an instantaneous, computerized database for the Straw Poll is a brilliant strategy. That important test is won through organization, which the Bachmann campaign is clearly employing.

Other volunteers walked around with sign-up sheets. Placards, bumper stickers and pins were widely distributed. Everyone was asked if they wanted a lapel sticker.

Okay – I am a technology nerd, so the idea of equipping your staffers with iPads in order to instantaneously sign people up for Ames tickets, book their transportation, and store their information in a centralized database is awesome to me.

But, the article goes on to note that it’s not just a high tech organizational push, either:

The Minnesota congresswoman concluded her speech by encouraging the crowd to go inside and make phone calls on her behalf. Bachmann then spent at least half an hour shaking hands, signing autographs and speaking to voters. She is clearly putting in the type of retail politics necessary to win the Iowa Caucus.

Bachmann’s campaign headquarters, which served as the Victory office for John McCain in 2008, has all the look and feel of a professional operation. There are at least 10 VoIP phones, which allow callers to instantly identify supporters, sign them up for Straw Poll tickets, and store them in an accessible database. Bachmann joined the phone bankers for a couple of calls.

I have long said that it takes three things to win Ames: support and organization, with the money to bring the two together. For weeks now, we’ve known that Bachmann has the support. We’re assuming she has the money (although it is odd that she refused to release her fundraising numbers until July 15). Her one glaring weakness has always been organization.

If that’s not really a weakness, or is less of one than it used to be, the rest of the field in Iowa might not ever get off the ground.

The second fund-raising quarter is over for candidates and campaign committees, redistricting proceeds in a number of states, and special election season continues (tomorrow) in California. With all of that in mind, it’s time for another addition of quick hits, reports from the 450-odd federal races (and sometimes gubernatorial contests) which will also be happening in 2012.

1. CA-36: The CA-36 special election I’ve been talking about here on Race for a while takes place tomorrow. Though Democrats will probably still win this one, it retains upset potential. The campaign of Republican Craig Huey has been encouraged by early vote numbers. A last-minute PPP poll had LA city countrywoman Janice Hahn up by 8, but in a low-turn-out special election–particularly one in which the Democrat is dogged by bad press over a gang intervention program–anything is possible. And, given the D+12 make-up of this district, wouldn’t a single-digit win be sort of underwhelming? Speaking of California:

2. CA-11: Ever heard of Ricky Gill? Probably not, but he’s a 24-year-old candidate for congress running in CA-11, and he just posted a rather impressive fund-raising haul for the second quarter (over 400 thousand). Redistricting could do almost anything to this district by the time it’s done, but Gill is definitely someone to watch, particularly in a state where the Republican bench is notably rather thin.

3. NY-09: The dance card is set in this NYC district, which is expected to go away after redistricting (which won’t stop political junkies from following the race, now will it)? Democrats have tapped Assemblyman David Weprin to run for the seat formerly occupied by Rep. Anthony Weiner. Republicans, who were leaning toward 24-year-old city councilman Eric Ulrich until he expressed his lack of interest, have settled on 2010 nominee Bob Turner, giving him the ballot line of both the Conservative and Republican parties. It actually looks like Turner may have a clean shot at all the right-leaning votes in this district, and he’s a wealthy former cable TV executive, so might have self-funding potential. The district has trended Republican since the 2000 redistricting cycle, so we have a real–all be it an outside–chance in this seat.

4. FL-Sen: The dance card is apparently not set in the Florida senate race, as all reports indicate that Ruth Chris steakhouse CEO Craig Miller is jumping into the (already crowded) FL-Sen primary. Miller was last seen coming in third in a field of five candidates in FL-24, a seat now held by freshman Rep. Sandy Adams. He’ll also have a lot of catching up to do on the fund-raising front, as former appointed Senator George LeMieux and former state senate president Mike Haridopolos each just raised under a million dollars this quarter (which is a dramatic fall-off in fund-raising for Haridopolos, actually), while former state house majority leader Adam Hasner raised just under 500 thousand. Also in the race is retired Colonel and 2010 gubernatorial candidate Mike Mcalister, for whom fund-raising numbers aren’t readily available.

5. NM-Sen: State auditor and Democratic candidate Hector Balderas had a very good week; not only did he post strong fund-raising numbers, but he gained the endorsement of former Lieutenant governor and 2010 Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dianne Denish. This is really more indicative of the fact that the Dem establishment hasn’t entirely lined up for Rep. Martin Heinrich, who Democrats in DC regard as a rising star and love because of his self-funding potential, than anything else. On the Republican side of the isle, Heather Wilson and John Sanchez are both dancing around as to their level of support for the Ryan plan, but not a whole lot more news here. It’s somewhat unclear who would be a better nominee for Republicans here, but my guess is that it’s better to face Heinrich–who only hung on to win by about 5 points in 2010–than Balderas–a young, Latino, rising star with a statewide profile and no voting record to defend. Here’s wishing team blue a nice, long, highly bruising primary in NM, regardless of the eventual outcome.

6. DSCC: Anybody remember 2010, where the RNSC seemed to trip over itself left and right regarding candidates? IT seems like Democrats have decided this is a pretty cool strategy, and they’d really like to copy it, thanks. First, there’s the ongoing drama in Massachusetts, where the DSCC continues to promise a “really great candidate” “within weeks”. You’d think at some point there would be some substantial throat-clearing and finger-pointing from the folks who are, ya know, actually running against Scott Brown? Particularly from City Year founder Alan Khazei, who actually raised a respectable 900,000 this quarter (a figure which, I point out, Brown doubled). Then, the DSCC released a fund-raising appeal in which they basically through Ben Nelson under the bus, excluding him from a list of triage seats Democrats could defend if they don’t get more money. Now, the chances of Nelson winning reelection in Nebraska are…well, not terribly high, but showing an incumbent senator just how much of a priority he’s not might encourage retirement, which would make the seat a 100 percent goner for Democrats, instead of a likely loss, which it is now. In short, Pattie Murray’s chairmanship of the DSCC may well have been a blessing in disguise.

7. TX-Sen: It looks like Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst is off the fence and officially in the TX-Sen race. And, according to early polling, Dewhurst is the prohibitive front-runner, winning 40 percent of the vote to 11 percent for solicitor-General Ted Cruz and state senator Dan Patrick both. Cruz, however, has been getting a lot of institutional conservative support, and the decision of former Texas railroad commissioner Michael Williams to run for an open house seat and abandon the senate race has given Cruz a real opportunity to consolidate tea party support. Dallas mayor Tom Lepert also gained a mere 5 percent in the poll, which is sort of surprising. Recall that Democrats still think they can teach that good-ole Texas horse to sing a bluish song come November 2012, so there’s a chance they’ll pour a lot of money and effort into this race.

8. NV-02: Another special election coming up, this one in NV-02, and both parties have picked their candidates. Republicans settled on moderate state senator and former party chair Mark Amodei, while Democrats have tapped state treasurer Kate Marshall. Marshall is about the strongest candidate Democrats could have gotten for this seat, so we definitely shouldn’t take this seat for granted, notwithstanding it’s reddish tilt (NY-26 hopefully taught all of us something about special elections and assumptions).

9. Redistricting: The knife-fight that is the decennial redistricting process continues, with Republicans striking back for the Democratic gerrymander in Illinois, with an aggressive map of their own in North Carolina. Democrats–notably then state senator Brad Miller–drew lines to keep Republicans very much penned up in 2000, and now Republicans look like undoing that this year. Miller himself is the most likely to lose the seat he drew himself last time, but Democratic Reps Larry Kissell, Mike McIntyre and Heath Schuler could also be in a certain amount of trouble under the new maps. In Wisconsin and Michigan, Republicans drew largely incumbent-protection maps, which may net us about 1 seat. Meanwhile, the California map could still change dramatically, but as is, looks like it could cost Republicans a couple of seats in the short-term, but create a lot more swingy territory in the long-term. And nobody really knows what’s going to happen in Florida, where the fair districts initiative still looks as though it’s going to face a court challenge on VRA grounds (the voting rights act requires states to draw a certain number of majority-minority seats, based on population, which end up being Democratic freebies because Republicans often don’t even bother fielding candidates…but I digress). There also seems to be a flap happening in South Carolina (in which Republicans have unified control of both chambers), which might cause Republicans to actually lose the new seat SC will draw. Check out the Fix’s excellent redistricting series–the South Carolina entry in particular–and cry a little inside about missed opportunities. National Journal elections expert Ron Brownstein estimates that, when all is said and done, Democrats may actually gain a seat or two from redistricting, which is depressing given the sheer number of states in which Republicans control both chambers and the governorship. In any event, there are still more than a few states we haven’t heard from yet, so stay tuned.

From the Boston Globe:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will decide whether to run for president “very soon,” his New Hampshire spokeswoman said today.

Giuliani will visit New Hampshire this Thursday and Friday, yet spokeswoman Alicia Preston said he is not expected to announce his plans on this trip.

“But shortly afterward, we’ll hear what his final decision is,” she said.

No comment.